[Engave]

My intuition calls for a return of the ether.

Not the purely electromagnetic conduit of old, but an ether that all energy, all matter travels through...

it would require that the fabric of space be that conduit, but seperate from an absolute space.

There would be clumping and dispersal of this conduit that would account for all gravity in the universe.

Matter is not held together by gravity, its force is too weak, it is the strong and weak nuclear forces that bind matter so tightly.  Gravity is the effect of that grouping of engaged conduit space on the surrounding matter that is also using available ether to move.

What is this conduit?
String theory offers a glimpseof what might be possible...

[Soul Surfer]

This subject seems to be a nest of right loonies and wierdos. A lot of the surff above is scientifically very incorrect or just wordy garbage. Like all good misleading documents it contains a fair number of real pieces of information linked in a misleading way with a seeming gloss of authority.  I think that this topic should be reviewed by the administrators and considered for deletion because it containd so much misleading information and conclusions.   The real problem is the question which is put the wrong way.  It is not a matter of what causes gravity but an understanding of the fact that gravity causes the universe.

[BenV]

Soul Surfer has a point - as with all things, it's worth double checking before you take anything posted on a forum as gospel.

Many of the comments on this thread are personal opinions, or pet hypotheses, and so could be misleading.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Said this before somewhere on the forum but feel it needs repeating. The alignment of the majority of particles are offset on a planet and not perpendicular to the core so could be shown to cause a spin much the same as a Catherine wheel firework causes it to spin when ignited. Every single particle on the planet contributes to the attracting force we call gravity. I read somewhere that in some places the alignment of gravity is observably offset and people notice they are standing at a slight angle rather than upright. I think Eureka was one such place mentioned.
The particles that make up the planet have repelling forces and attracting forces.

Another interesting point to consider is that if gravity can alter the direction of water swirling as it flows through an outlet on either side of the equator, then it must be doing the same at the molten core, surely this could also influence the motion of the planet? I do not know whether anyone has mentioned this on the forum?

Subsurface structural features of the Saline Range and adjacent regions of eastern California as interpreted from isostatic residual gravity anomalies
Richard J. Blakely1 and Edwin H. McKee1
1 U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
New gravity data indicate a large unexpected anomaly in the Saline Range and other anomalies in neighboring ranges and valleys of eastern California. Residual gravity anomalies, calculated by subtracting the field due to an Airy model of isostatic compensation, show the effects of lateral density contrasts in the upper crust. A well-defined negative gravity anomaly is centered over the Saline Range and connects the Eureka Valley and Saline Valley gravity minima. Apparently, the Saline Range is a thin veneer of young volcanic material lying on a major alluvium-filled basin connected on the north with Eureka Valley and on the south with Saline Valley. We suggest that the basin formed in a pull-apart zone that filled with low-density alluvium and became the site of voluminous Pliocene volcanic eruptions. The age of this depression predates volcanism of the Saline Range dated at about 4 Ma. Other significant anomalies are as follows: (1) An offset in the Owens Valley fault at lat 37°01'N appears in the isostatic residual gravity data and marks the western end of a major gravity depression that continues across the Inyo Mountains at Papoose Flat. The gravity depression suggests that the Papoose Flat pluton is larger than suggested by its surface exposure and may extend on the order of 10 km below the topographic surface. (2) A density boundary trends west-northwest across the Inyo batholith and Proterozoic and Paleozoic rocks of the White Mountains. This trend is anomalous to exposed geologic structures and may reflect a structural boundary buried at relatively shallow depth. (3) A large gravity low, unexpected on the basis of exposed geologic features, is in the eastern Sierra Nevada southwest of the town of Lone Pine.

what i mean is that is it caused by the earth's spinning motion?? or what? if not than what causes the earth to spin?? why is it spinning??

[jdsmith02115]

I've sought this forum as a result of certain thoughts that came to me while riding my bicycle and feeling the effects of gravitation as I negotiated hills and such.
I began contemplating the nature of gravity. My thoughts immediately went to the diagrams most of us are familiar with that show an object in "space" distorting a grid like arrangement meant to convey the idea of space being warped by the presence of an object. I then thought that this diagram is actually somewhat misleading in terms of it attempting to accurately convey this idea as it shows only one aspect of the phenomenon. I thought that it is more accurately described as the object being totally enveloped by the distortion. as to how it describes gravity, Just a hypothesis here; The space that is warped by the object is warped in relation to the mass and volume of the object. relatively small objects warp the space only a little therefore they have very little gravity. Conversely larger objects warp a lot of space and are heavier. But this line of reasoning leads to much bigger questions. I began to imagine space-time as a kind of medium that has a nature whose qualities we understand very incompletely. Perhaps I thought, space is "stiff"; that when an object is warping it, it is actually "compressing" the space and the space is perhaps denser close to the object and this compression is actually exerting a reciprocal force towards the object equally on all points on the object toward the center. In short the larger the object the, more space warped, the more reciprocal force exerted on the object, the more gravity the object has, the harder it is for an object on the surface of the object warping this space to escape this warped space surrounding the object. Once something on the surface of such an object does escape the area of densely warped space surrounding the object, it becomes weightless.
For this to work in the way I'm attempting to describe, there would necessarily need to be a constant density of the spatial medium everywhere in the known universe,or else this medium would simply take a path of lesser resistance whenever changes in the mass and volume of objects within it occurred. which leads to yet another thought; The universe, if all of this works in the way I believe it might, must be finite. That is if the density of this spatial medium is constant, it must somehow be confined (perhaps by so called "dark matter")by forces that exert pressures on this spatial medium equal to the  expansive force of the spatial medium that occur when objects within it change volume and mass. I short I guess I'm suggesting that universe may be finite and that is what ultimately causes the effect we describe as gravity. Other thoughts please!   

[Kenyonm]

Hello

The earth hasn't always been spinning, its rotation is relative to it's size, so as it grew in it's beginning stages, the rotation increased until the earth solidified and its mass became static.

Why does it rotate ?

If it didn't, the forces in the unviverse would pull it apart and it would spread out like compressed gas does when it is released into air.

The rest of the milky way, our galaxy, is pulling the earth in ever changing directions as the concentrations of stars in the galaxy line up to concentrate the pull in all directions unevenly.

The rotation evens out this pull and allows the earth to stay in a globe shape.

Now to the subject of gravity.

There are clues all around us, you know what they are but don't see the connection.

What happens to fish in the sea?

Why to they not all sink to the bottom of the ocean at 9.81 m/s squared?

The reason is that they have the same density as the water and can tune this density by sucking in more water to lower their density and so move upwards or exhale in to become more dense and fall.

We were once fish and existed as fish do without any gravitational force on us. The word Gravity is a word we have come up with for something we do not understand, when we do fully understand it we will not call it this anymore.

So newtons law does not follow here, the gravitational force on the fish mass x the acceleration due to gravity g. This = 0  g=0 when the density of the object is the same as the medium.

When we we fish we too had the same density as the water and still have a very close density to it now.

As soon as we moved out of the water we placed ourselves at a level above our natural density level.

A resorting force is then applied to move us back to it. The force is proportional to the ratio between the densities, the higher the difference, the greater the force. This applies to all the stars and planets in the galaxy, not just the resorting force towards the centre of the earth. You are being resorted towards the sun, mercury, venus, mars, the moon, all the moons around the planets,Jupiter has a large resorting force and Neptune plus pluto and all the other stars and planets in the galaxy.

Everytime we get out of the bath we feel this resorting force restored.

The rotation of the earth ensures these forces are averaged out so that as the sorting force is greater towards the local density node, the earth, so we remain on earth and do not fly off.

Why do the planets rotate around the sun?

The solar system is a giant gyroscope, the planets are masses in this giant gyroscope. The resorting forces in the universe act to pull it apart, so the rotation of the whole system is needed to average this out and keep the solar system as it is. Without it Neptune would be sucked off and sail away towards a supermassive system far away.

To understand it further,

The terminal velocity formula can be transposed to have its terms changed to show that it is proportional to the ration of densities. But the equation should equal 0 when the densities are the same and it doesn't. Extra missing terms have to be added multiplying the answer by the difference of the densities also so this zero's out the formula.

This formula then needs differentiating to become a formula for acceleration. The value of g is then arrived at for different density ratios.

In the past we have assumed that two balls of different densities would fall at the same rate, this was untrue. Firstly bacause they have a different density ratio with air and secondly that the air density is not constant and decreases rapidly as the balls are raised. At the height of 20,000 m it is a small fraction of what the air density is at ground level.

There is a formula for this air density, which can be altered for any medium.

If we travel out further into space towards the moon, at some point the density field of the earth will equal that of the moon. In relation to the earth and moon there is zero g imposed. In between this an orbit has to maintained to prevent an acceleration towards either the earth or the moon.

At this density midpoint, other density gradients cross and although you may be at a density mid point between the earth and the moon, this is not so with you and the sun. So a sorting force is imposed on you by the sun. Jupiter also imposes a sorting force as well as the other planets. The net force and direction of all this inputs gives rise to the acceleration and direction you will follow.

Spaceships need position control thrusters and a main thruster to combat this forces and move in an unnatural direction.

Along these density meridians, hydrogen flows, being the least dense of all the elements it travels freely along these rivers towards stars afar.

I will share the new formala for g with anyone who is interested.

Regards

Mike Kenyon

 

[Kenyonm]

Hello.

What causes gravity.

Firstly, lets examine things we take for granted. The fish in the ocean are swimming around. They have mass so why do they not fall to the bottom of the ocean like a piece of metal would?

The answer is because they have the same density as the water and when the object, the fish, has the same density as the medium it feels no gravity. g=0.

So g is dependent on the the objects density and the medium's density.

So if we start with  g= density object/density medium

but this = 1 when the two densities are equal so more terms are added.

next we take one density from the other and multiply it by the ratio such that.

g= density object/density medium x (density object-density medium)

This also allows the acceleration to have an up and down vector.

Now we have to scale the formula.

The greater the altitude, the lower the density of the medium, be that water or air.
Water on the sea bed is at a much higher density and pressure than on the surface.

But it is the mediums density immediately surrounding the object that matters.
 
The density of a gas has a formula that varies with height, the formulas include the universal gas constant.

Density medium= maximum density x 1/exp(hieght/23800)
 
The 23800 is the result of the rest of the formula to simplify the calculation.

g= density object/maxim density medium x 1/exp(height/23,800)
     x (density object-maximum density medium x 1/exp(height/23,800)

Now g will vary with height.

When a person is falling through air there is nowhere in the range of air density that is the same as the persons density which is roughly the same as sea water.

So the air molecules rush past us as we seek our natural density position which is in the water. If there is solid land in the way we will hit it before we reach our destination.

Next we have to add the air friction which acts differently with the shapes presented. a flat circle attached to a parachute will fall slower then a ball bearing of the same mass attached to the same parachute. A needle of the same mass will fall the fastest.

So the difference between the cross section area of a needle and a flat disc of the same volume covers the lamina flow type of falling. A flat disc with a rough surface with tiny buckets  indented in it pointing towards the centre would fall even slower. These are like resistors in an electrical circuit, but it is air that is flowing not current. Each resistor could be given a number and its resistance being a property of the velocity of the air flowing around it.
 


The reason for the density being the same is that we originated from being a sea creature. We floated around at zero g, just as fish do. We still like to lie in virtually zero g in the bath.

Heres the formula so far agian

 g= density object  /maxim density medium x 1/exp(height/23,800)
     x (((density object-maximum density medium x 1/exp(height/23,800)*K)
     
Now if we  add the effect of medium resistance, the equation will go out of balance if it isn't placed in the correct place.

To prevent this the density of the object will not change whatever shape it is.
A near zero high value resistor such as a needle could have a value of almost 1.
A low value resistor such as a rough pocketted disc could have a value of 0.8

The value of g is an acceleration but the resistors work in relation to the flow rate akin to    V=I.R  Where V is the potential difference, which is Density medium - Density object.
the equiverlent of I is the air velocity rushing past and the K value is the resistance.
 
See K added to the potential difference above

So there we have it, a simple formula for g.

This works as in space at very low density the density of more than one heavenly body comes into play and actually it does on earth also.

So the density of the medium has more than 1 component.

It is density medium Earth -density medium moon - density medium the sun-density medium Jupiter and so on. The moons density meets the earths somewhere in between the two. The reference heights can be matched to the height above the earth and the height above the moon and the net density worked out. The moons low density field on earth pulls higher density objects on earth towards the moon. When the moon is rising and falling it pulls the sea water on an angle so creating the tides.

In space both the earths density field is trying to sort you and your spaceship back to the natural density layer of the spaceship which is deep underground at the layer where aluminium resides. Similarly the moon has a dense layer under its surface that is the same density as the spaceship and a sorting force is applied to move it to this natural density zero g layer also.
The Earth has the biggest density field and the thrusters on the spcace ship oppose this until you near the moon when the moons density is greater then the earths at this point and the thrusters have to be reversed at this point to combat the moons sorting action.

I hope this narative provokes some thought as g is a variable, not a constant. We place g=9.81 in equations and put terms around it to balance the equations. We need to put g as a variable and work out the coorect formulas to match this.Much work has to be done,  it could spawn a new era. More work may be required to refine the formula to include the local heavenly bodies and the local star systems around us. How the stars progress around effects their distant miniscule density fields that may just a light particles at this range and their effect on our solar systems position in space. Also the K values for the shapes presented to the mediums needs to be finalised. Fish have a very high K value, they are thin and their scales point backwards, the presented profile is streamlined and very small in relation to the fish's total volume. This is a result of natural selection.

Regards

Mike Kenyon
 





Reference

At sea level it is 23.77 slugs/ft cubed (US units) and at 20,000 ft it is 12,67 slugs/ft 3
Roughly halved
At 40,000 ft it is 5,87 slugs/ft cubed and at 80,000 ft it is 0.86 slugs/ft cubed
At 250,000 ft it is 0.00065 slugs/ft cubed

The air pressure drops accordindly from 14.696 pounds per square inch at sea level to 0.03 pounds per square inch at 200,000 ft. At 250,000 ft it is approaching zero.

 

[PmbPhy]

Hi Kenyonm. Welcome to the forum!  []

The earth hasn't always been spinning, its rotation is relative to it's size, so as it grew in it's beginning stages, the rotation increased until the earth solidified and its mass became static.

The Earth used to rotate faster than it does now. Tidal forces caused by the moon is causing the rate of rotation to slow down.

Why does it rotate ?

If it didn't, the forces in the unviverse would pull it apart and it would spread out like compressed gas does when it is released into air.

There are no forces in the universe which would pull the Earth apart. The only force acting on the Earth are gravitational forces from other bodies. They can basically be ignored since they're pretty small. The force on the Earth by its own forces hold it together. In fact that's what gives the Earth the shape of a sphere. But it  wouldn't be pulled apart by other forces in the universe.

The rest of the milky way, our galaxy, is pulling the earth in ever changing directions as the concentrations of stars in the galaxy line up to concentrate the pull in all directions unevenly.

The magnitude of those forces on the Earth are so small that they can be neglected for all intents and purposes.

Now to the subject of gravity.

Speaking of which. Sir Arthur Eddington wrote the following about Einstein's theory of gravity, i.e. General Relativity

The purpose of Einstein's new theory has often been misunderstood, and it is criticized as a attempt to explain gravity. The theory does not offer any explanation of gravitation; that lies outside its scope, and does not even hint at a possible mechanism. It is true that we have introduced a definite hypothesis as to the relation between gravity and a distortion in space; but if that explains anything, it explains not gravitation, but space, i.e. the scaffolding constructed from our measures. - A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, page 36

We were once fish and existed as fish do without any gravitational force on us. The word Gravity is a word we have come up with for something we do not understand, when we do fully understand it we will not call it this anymore.

That's quite wrong. We call it gravity because we merely needed to give the phenomena a name like we do with everything else in nature.

..., when we do fully understand it we will not call it this anymore.

That has never been true. I.e. there has never been a phenomena which was given a name and then given another name when we "fully understood" it. In fact there will never be a time in the future where we can say that we know everything about something, i.e. we will never "fully understand" anything. That's not one of the abilities in science.

See something which is closely related at: ttp://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV

So newtons law does not follow here, the gravitational force on the fish mass x the acceleration due to gravity g. This = 0  g=0 when the density of the object is the same as the medium.

You're wrong. Newton's law of gravitation always applies in its domain of applicability such as is the case here. There is a force of gravity acting on the fish and another force exerted on the fish due to the water pressure surrounding the fish. The forces cancel out.

etc.

[puppypower]

My theory for gravity is the speed of light is the ground state of the universe and gravity is an affect due to matter attempting to return to the speed of light reference.

If we start with extreme energy, photons can split into matter and anti-matter. This results in photons originally moving at C, becoming something that can't move at C. Matter cannot move at C. Since matter and anti-matter is at higher potential, lowering the potential would return matter and anti-matter back to C. Since anti-matter has been removed and only matter net remains in the universe, the push back to lower potential C is still there, but matter has to find other ways.

If you look at gravity this causes space-time to contract in the general direction of C reference. Stars can't go all the way to C but can mass burn to energy via fusion to partially return to C. Black holes get almost all the way to the point-instant reference of C. They are stable due to having little potential remaining.

The universal red shift is also connected to energy returning to C reference. If you were on the C reference, the universe would look like a point. What that means is any wavelength less than infinite can' be seen, since that wavelength would be a fraction of a point, which is not possible by definition of a point. For energy to return to C ; so it can be seen, it needs to red shift toward infinite.

[guest39538]

Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart. If the earth stopped spinning it would not rip apart, it would simply become a sphere compared to the present obloid shape.
Force created from spin is a Y-axis invert force to a central point. There is no inwards force of the x axis created by spin, the x axis is under constant ''centrifugal force'' trying to expand.

This shows you why gravity is mass attracted to mass.  In saying that you have just given my an idea and a thought to question.

If we spin a ball on the ground really fast , the north and south of the Y axis compresses, and the x axis tries to expand, however the ball is on the ground, the ground is has an equal and opposing force that allows the ball to compress,

so my question is what force is underneath the earth at the south pole or north pole dependent to which way we are really up, that is an equal and opposing force to the earth to make the obloid physically possible?

[MolonLabe]

Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart.

I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.

[guest39538]

I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.

Geostationary.

[MolonLabe]

I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.

Geostationary.

I don't know if this applies to all satellites or just some, but even geostationary satellites spin on their own axes. Try googling "Onboard spin axis controller for a geostationary spin-stabilized satellite" or  http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.20215?journalCode=jgcd [nofollow]

Is this what you mean by spin (or lack of it)?

[guest39538]

I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.

Geostationary.

I don't know if this applies to all satellites or just some, but even geostationary satellites spin on their own axes. Try googling "Onboard spin axis controller for a geostationary spin-stabilized satellite" or  http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.20215?journalCode=jgcd

Is this what you mean by spin (or lack of it)?

Well you learn something new every day , thanks, either way it does not matter, spin has no effect on the x axis being compressed, I did have a theory myself once about everything being based on spin, complex but workable.

[Colin2B]

If we spin a ball on the ground really fast , the north and south of the Y axis compresses, and the x axis tries to expand, however the ball is on the ground, the ground is has an equal and opposing force that allows the ball to compress,

so my question is what force is underneath the earth at the south pole or north pole dependent to which way we are really up, that is an equal and opposing force to the earth to make the obloid physically possible?

The ground provides an equal and opposite force due to the weight of the ball. The earth won't experience that as it doesn't rest on a surface.
The forces compressing the ball are internal to the ball, not outward towards the ground - remember that in this case you are not pressing the top of the ball to cause the compression.

[Michael Fournier]

I saw someone on here say WHY ask what causes Gravity, can't we just accept it is? Well It would certainly help a lot to find a way to create gravity on a long range spacecraft (simulating it using centrifugal force is not the same thing). OR to learn how to cancel it on earth to fly without aerodynamic forces or lighter then air craft. Most of the fuel to launch a space craft is used just to break it out of earths gravitational pull imagine if we could simply turn off the earths effect on the spacecraft at will? There are many reasons to ask What causes gravity. It seems to me most of what we know about gravity is the study of it's effects not it's cause. I am not a Expert in anyway but it does not take a expert to understand solving this question and then to make practical use from that would be a astronomically HUGE scientific breakthrough. Everything else is hypothesis until you can not only explain your hypothesis but actually prove it with practical application. I also know the way it is discussed in schools (Meaning K-12 education text books) gives the impression Newton Understood Gravity what he did was come up with mathematical formulas that explained the effects of gravity on mass and motion. (not to say that was not huge and quite brilliant especially when you consider how long ago he came up with those formulas and we still use them today) My fear it is highly likely that it is a force SO dependent on mass that to duplicate the gravity of earth in a space craft that works the same as gravity on earth would require a spacecraft that had the the same mass of the earth.  In the end it may just be one of those laws of physics you just can not change even if we did fully understand it. But that does not mean we should not continue to try or ask why. Asking why is what science is all about. (To those more educated then I please be kind as I know I may be way off)

[jeffreyH]

Shielding a spacecraft from the force of gravity would be some feat. Considering that gravitation acts on all particles almost simultaneously. Depending only on the density of hypothetical force carriers. The best that can be done is distort the gravitational field around an object so that no force carriers take a path through the craft. This would require some kind of black hole device. Imagine trying to contain that.

[puppypower]

Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart. If the earth stopped spinning it would not rip apart, it would simply become a sphere compared to the present obloid shape.
Force created from spin is a Y-axis invert force to a central point. There is no inwards force of the x axis created by spin, the x axis is under constant ''centrifugal force'' trying to expand.

This shows you why gravity is mass attracted to mass.  In saying that you have just given my an idea and a thought to question.

If we spin a ball on the ground really fast , the north and south of the Y axis compresses, and the x axis tries to expand, however the ball is on the ground, the ground is has an equal and opposing force that allows the ball to compress,

so my question is what force is underneath the earth at the south pole or north pole dependent to which way we are really up, that is an equal and opposing force to the earth to make the obloid physically possible?

What is interesting about the spin of the earth, is this spin generates a centrifugal force vector that goes in the opposite direction of the gravitational force vector. If the earth spun fast enough and stayed together we would be propelled into space. This is not called antigravity, but the force vector from the spin points in the same direction as would anti-gravity.

What this suggests is the gravitational force, like all the other forces, gives off some form of energy, when the potential lowers, that can cause a countering action/reaction in other matter.

As an analogy, if the EM force caused an electron to fall one energy level, the energy given off, can cause another electron to gain that potential. If a lot of electrons where lowering potential, but the countering re-absorption was not 100% efficient, the result would be only partial action/reaction. In the case of gravity, the lowering of gravitational potential gives off energy, but this appears to only partially go into the spin, that mathematically cancels only some of the gravity force vector.
 

[Kenyonm]

Hello once more

I have read your feedback

What holds the galaxy together if the graviation forces are so weak?

Now lets look at Newtons equation  Force = Mass x acceleration.

The Force is small as the stars in the galaxy are far away , but the combined mass of the galaxy is massive.

So a whole galaxy will have a huge force pulling the other galaxies towards it.

This is why our galaxy will collide with he Andromeda–Milky Way collision is a galactic collision predicted to occur in about 4 billion years between the two largest galaxies in the Local Group - google

So the forces are not weak when the masses are large and Newtons equation says no matter how small the force is it will cause an acceleration.

If you look at just 2 degrees in a circle, making a cone in space and see how many galaxies are in that cone. All these combine together to pull on our solar system, the biggest planets and the sun will feel the largest force.

In order for these forces not to change the position of the planets in the solar system; they orbit the sun in a perfectly balanced rotation with the other planets to keep the sun very still in space, or on its path through space at a huge velocity as it orbits the centre of the milky way, The inertia is 1/2 the mass of the solar system x it's tangential velocity squared. This is a huge amount of inertia that is in all respect infinity large. So the outside forces have little or no effect on the position of the elements of the solar system as a result of the rotation. The mass is 1.98555 x 10 to the power 30 x 1.0014 and the velocity is 365 days at 120 million miles radius = 240 million miles diameter
pi x 240 million miles  is a velocity of 38,451 meters per second. This squared is 1478468463 and muliplied by the mass is  2.94 x E to the power 39 N m/s squared.

The earth and all the other heavenly bodies rotate in just the same way at a speed to create the inertia level to keep the earth perfectly still in space, we take this for granted. Everything seems to be perfectly stationary, only earth quakes disrupt this.

On the subject of the cause of gravity again, I will give some more examples.

When we watch a high diver at the World Championships, they spring up off the diving board and then fall as their density is many times greater than air.
They are rushed past by the air molecules the cannot support the diver but are dense enough to act as a restistor to his or her profile and slow the diver down a little.
So the acceleration isn't as high as a needle of the same mass would achieve.

When the diver hits the water, the effect is seems is straight away, the water is almost the same density at the surface as the diver so the acceleration is decreased quickly to zero in just a few seconds. All the interia is absorbed by the water and the diver comes to a halt. There is an abrupt change in g as soon as the diver enters the water. It is almost zero, the inertia is what carries the diver into the water.

Another example is a birthday ballon that is going down. Three days after the birthday, you come down stairs one morning and the balloon is floating in mid air. The net density of the ballon plus the remaining Helium is the same as the density of the air. The ballon has mass, but it doesn't fall and the mass x g rule is wrong. g is a variable proportional to the ratio of the objects/medium 1's density/the surrounding medium 2. This is the cause of the force, if the densities are the same there is no force.
When there is a difference a sorting force is created to change the object to its correct place to be surounded by material of the same density as it's own again.
Whilst there is movement there is medium flow (such as water or air) and this impedes the movement.
The terms x(Density medium-Density object)K  where K is a decimal fraction. So the resistance K once occurs when there is a flow. When the Object and medium's density is the same this drops these terms to zero so zeroing out the whole equation. The full equation is on my earlier post. If anyone wants to help refine this formula with me, I would be very grateful and will consider them as part of a team that has helped find the cause of gravity and the team will be the most famous team in history.
The realm of the lone wolf inventor is limited, but the power of a team with scientific prowess would be many times more capable to complete the goal.
Once the cause of gravity is found and uncontested, the next task is anti gravity, a free power source, that will create no exhaust fumes, will probably cost almost nothing to run. My company is called MKForce Ltd. It is a young company. I believe that all who contribute to creating an invention should recieve an equal reward. If we are stuck and someone comes along with the answer and unlocks the team, then that person is in the team. Who wants to be in the team?

Regards

Mike Kenyon




 
   




 

[Kenyonm]

Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart.

I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.

The earth is travelling at a huge speed,it's mass is huge compared to your salelite. If it stopped rotating, the effect would be to stretch it out akin to the tail on a comet, the mass would stretch. Pull a balloon through water and see what happens. Now if possible do it again but with the ballon spinning and it would stay round, the forces are evenned out.

A gyroscope works to stablise an object connected to it. The Earth is a huge gyroscope which makes it massively stable. Without the rotation it would be massively unstable.

Regards

Mike

Regards

Mike